Cornock v Foster

The case of Cornock v Foster involved a dispute between a solicitor, Cornock, and a client, Foster, regarding unpaid professional costs and disbursements arising from Family Court proceedings. Cornock sought an interim injunction under the Mareva principles to prevent Foster from disposing of property that was partly owned by Foster, in order to secure the unpaid costs. The court was asked to determine whether the Mareva injunction should be granted and if there was sufficient evidence to warrant a stay on the sale of the property.

The legal issues before the court centred on the application of the Mareva injunction, which is used to prevent a defendant from disposing of assets outside the jurisdiction to satisfy a potential judgment. Cornock argued that there was an agreement to pay the outstanding costs out of the sale of the property and that Foster had not complied with this arrangement. The court had to assess whether there was a real prospect of success in Cornock's claim and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was sufficient evidence to warrant a stay on the sale of the property, and if it was necessary to hear from third parties involved in the sale.

The court concluded that Cornock had not provided enough evidence to support the granting of a Mareva injunction. The judge found that while Cornock had established a prima facie case, there was insufficient information to determine the current position of the sale of the property and the involvement of third parties. The court emphasised the need for further evidence before such an injunction could be granted. Consequently, the application for the injunction was dismissed, and the court ordered that Cornock provide additional evidence to support the claim.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the Mareva injunction application and an order for Cornock to provide further evidence regarding the sale of the property and the involvement of third parties. This decision highlights the importance of thorough documentation and evidence when seeking interim relief, particularly in complex property disputes.